patent_filings_by_ticker

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It outlines the return format (JSON/CSV) and mentions that CSV returns a sliced series. However, it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. The output structure is partially described, but behavioral context is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose but contains a lengthy JSON example that could be abbreviated or referenced. While the structure is logical, the verbosity of the example reduces conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should comprehensively explain return values. It provides a detailed JSON example of the response structure, covering many fields. However, it does not address edge cases, error responses, or pagination details (e.g., how 'limit' interacts with pagination). The tool has nested objects and requires some explanation, which is partially provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does not explain the purpose of 'limit', 'format', or the date range parameters beyond the inline 'YYYY-MM-DD' in the schema. There is no compensation for the lack of schema descriptions, making parameter semantics poor.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool maps USPTO granted patents to a single ticker by corporate assignee, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It differentiates from sibling tools like news or ratings by focusing on patent data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.